How much cheaper is a smaller Tank?

[Inversus]

Hey there!

So currently in europe/germany prices for gas (for heating) and power prices will rise drastically. It might as well go so far, that we cant heat in this winter at all if russia dont provide further gas. So Yeah... Bright future

Anyhow this should not be a political or what if thread.

In regards of me moving in near future and probably even multiple times in the next 5 years, I already thought about a smaller Tank, because I Imagine it beeing easier to move with it. Now with the incomming energycosts I have a reason more to think about a smaller one.

Currently I have a Red Sea reefer 250 (52 gallon) and considering downgrading to a Red sea reefer 170 (32 gallon).
It would obviously reduce water volume, which is probably the cheapest Ressource in this hobby. But less water also means less heating, which is the most power consuming element.

I think the more common route is a upgrade in Tank size, so did you noticed how much more a bigger Tank cost you? Or maybe some of you had the Same issue like me and can report of it

Thanks in advance!

 

[Derrick0580]

Well you have to figure a larger tank means more powerful lights, more power heads, bigger heater…just more electronics in general. A smaller tank would require less salt to do water changes and you could also get by without a skimmer possibly if you do large enough water changes. Then comes livestock….less room in a smaller tank means you’re spending less buying corals as you don’t have as much room to fill, and then generally, nano size fish are generally cheaper as well. This is just my take on it.

 

[Inversus]

Well you have to figure a larger tank means more powerful lights, more power heads, bigger heater…just more electronics in general. A smaller tank would require less salt to do water changes and you could also get by without a skimmer possibly if you do large enough water changes. Then comes livestock….less room in a smaller tank means you’re spending less buying corals as you don’t have as much room to fill, and then generally, nano size fish are generally cheaper as well. This is just my take on it.

Thanks for your reply. I have an used 170 deal in my near and the price is a no brainer. But I have to sleep at least a night over this.

Currently I own two clownfish, a watchman goby and the urchin. They all should fit easily in the 170, right?

 

[Mr. Mojo Rising]

The smaller the tank, the smaller the cost, honestly. I have a 32, a 15, and a 5 gallon. The main "frustration" is the limitation on animals that you can keep in small tanks, and the types of animals that do fit into small tanks are usually not very active.

 

[chris k.]

Well you have to figure a larger tank means more powerful lights, more power heads, bigger heater…just more electronics in general. A smaller tank would require less salt to do water changes and you could also get by without a skimmer possibly if you do large enough water changes. Then comes livestock….less room in a smaller tank means you’re spending less buying corals as you don’t have as much room to fill, and then generally, nano size fish are generally cheaper as well. This is just my take on it.

i have to agree that larger tanks use more equipment, more energy to run. however dropping 20 gallons might not make that much of a difference. your will probably use the same lights and pumps the only difference would be a heater. depending on your tank temp you might be able to drop a degree which i think would save more energy and less water evaporation than downsizing.

 

[Mschmidt]

Thanks for your reply. I have an used 170 deal in my near and the price is a no brainer. But I have to sleep at least a night over this.

Currently I own two clownfish, a watchman goby and the urchin. They all should fit easily in the 170, right?

I've got two clowns, tail spot blenny, and a dotty back in a 15g (gallon not gram. Only freedom units here) with a pencil urchin. They seem to fit just fine. Can't speak to how much less power I use between that and the 40 gallon

 

[gbru316]

If I had to tie a number to it, anywhere from 25% to 50% cheaper (comparing 100 gallon/378 liter+ to < 50 gallon/189 liters). You still need the same equipment, just not quite as much.

 

[pixelhustler]

I broke down all my costs (other than power) on my 75g a while back and the biggest cost was salt for water changes, followed by GFO. I set up my tank to run with nearly zero water changes and turned my GFO into a lanthanum reactor.
I don’t think 20g will make a meaningful difference in your case. If you want to save some $$ I recommend reducing WCs. You might have to improve your nutrient export to accomplish that.

 

[Inversus]

I bought the used 170, it was just too good of an offer to reject.
I want to change my rocks but would take a few smaller of them in the new tank. And I would just take the water and fill it into the new tank. Sand will be replaced.

Can I then immediately change the livestock also or does the "new" tank have to cycle a bit too?

 

[Karen00]

I wonder if the cost is the same on a per gallon/liter basis. Ultimately though it will be cheaper simply because you will need less of everything and smaller of everything (ex: fewer and smaller pumps and powerheads, lights, etc). You will also need less livestock which also means less food, etc. Overall costs will for sure be cheaper but in relative terms it might be the same. There was a good point made though that depending on how much you downgrade you might find yourself still using the same number of powerheads, lights, etc. The change would have to be enough to reduce everything that's needed to run it.